Blog

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, NOT FOR PUBLICATION Appellant, V. Case No. S-2011-545 BLAIR RIX MILLER, FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Appellee. STATE OF OKLAHOMA APR PER 6 2012 SUMMARY OPINION LEWIS, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE: MICHAEL S. RICHIE CLERK The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals the order of the Honorable Steve L. Stice, Special Judge, suppressing evidence in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CM-2011-504. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053.1(5). The State raises one proposition of error in this appeal: 1. The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions on the State for Discovery Code violations because the State had not violated the Discovery Code; This Court reviews the imposition of sanctions based on a party’s violation of the Criminal Discovery Code for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, 1 7, 875 P.2d 431, 432. We have consistently defined an abuse of discretion as “a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented.” Sanchez v. State, 2009 OK CR 31, 223 P.3d 980, 1001. We find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its finding that the State willfully violated its discovery order, or the imposition of sanctions for the State’s non- compliance. 22 O.S.2011, § 2002(E)(2); Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, I 6, 875 P.2d at 432. Proposition One is denied. DECISION The order of the District Court of Cleveland County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2012), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY THE HONORABLE STEVE L. STICE, SPECIAL JUDGE APPEARANCES AT TRIAL APPEARANCES ON APPEAL KEITH J. NEDWICK KEITH J. NEDWICK HEATHER STROHMEYER, INTERN 104 E. EUFAULA 104 E. EUFAULA NORMAN, OK 73069 NORMAN, OK 73069 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE ZACHARY H. SIMMONS GREG MASHBURN ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 201 S. JONES, STE. 300 ZACHARY H. SIMMONS NORMAN, OK 73069 ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 201 S. JONES, STE. 300 NORMAN, OK 73069 ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OPINION BY LEWIS, V.P.J. A. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concurs LUMPKIN, J.: Concurs C. JOHNSON, J.: Specially Concurs SMITH, J.: Concurs 2 C. JOHNSON, JUDGE, SPECIALLY CONCURRING: I concur with the reasoning and holding of the majority opinion. I write separately to underscore that the discovery process is as important in criminal cases as it is in civil ones. When “fair play” replaces “trial by ambush,” the parties and the public are better served. A trial is a time-consuming, expensive process. The more information the parties have, the more efficiently they can resolve the litigation between them. Discovery helps the parties determine which issues can reasonably be disputed. Advance knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent’s evidence can streamline the trial process, and in some cases make a trial unnecessary. This Court’s decision in Allen U. District Court of Washington County, 1990 OK CR 83, 803 P.2d 1164, represented a sea change in our State with regard to the rights and obligations of both prosecutors and criminal defendants regarding pretrial disclosure of information to each other. In Allen, this Court fashioned procedures to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to obtain relevant, discoverable information from their opponent. Those procedures gave district judges broad authority to impose sanctions necessary to ensure compliance with a discovery order, and to punish violations thereof. The Legislature adopted and expanded upon these procedures by enacting the Oklahoma Criminal Discovery Code, 22 O.S. § 2001 et seq., just a few years later. As a result, prosecutors and defense attorneys now know what kind of information they will most likely be required to disclose to the other side. They are on notice and under a continuing duty to preserve such evidence, even before a discovery order has been issued. In this case, the district court concluded that the State should have taken steps to preserve potentially discoverable evidence, and the court imposed sanctions on the State for failing to do SO. What is an appropriate discovery sanction is a matter within the district court’s discretion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But rules have little meaning if there is no means or will to enforce them. Common sense dictates that the more severe the sanction, the more likely the problem will be remedied in future cases. While the district court’s sanctions might seem harsh to some, it is safe to say that the State’s omissions in this case are unlikely to be repeated. 2

Click Here To Download PDF